Hobby Lobby and the Obama Administration

In the landmark decision of Burwell, Secretary of Human Health Services, et al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the United States Supreme Court allowed closely held for-profit corporations to exercise religious freedoms that could deny its female employees health coverage of contraceptives. The contraceptive mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will now excuse religious for-profit companies from providing contraceptives which may prevent implantation. Previously, this exemption was only provided to non-profit religious organizations such as churches. The decision was not unanimous with the Supreme Court Justices split at 5-4 and was highly contested. The majority supports that the contraceptive mandate of the ACA violates for-profit companies’

Hobby Lobby was owned by the Green family, who were profound Christians and they believe that life starts with contraception. According to the Green’s birth control violates their religious beliefs. The Green’s would often buy newspaper ads saying that Jesus is our lord and savior. They believe that their ideals should be

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), employment-based group health care plans must offer certain types of preventative care; this includes FDA-approved contraceptive methods. There are certain exemptions made available for religious employers and/or nonprofit institutions. Because Hobby Lobby is considered a for profit institution, it does not qualify for those exemptions.

First I will like to discuss the effect this decision made on an organization. It is important, because this organization is a large vehicle to the effort of birth control. Planned Parenthood, is an organization which offer its services to help family control pregnancies, counsels young woman on abortion, and it 's a lead voice in protection of the body of the female over the offspring. I will continue with Planned Parenthood expansion, while I explained the consequences of the precedent established by Griswold v. Connecticut in subsequent landmark cases.

However, an abortion is not the same as using an oral contraceptive. Oral contraceptives are used to limit the likely hood of pregnancy and cannot terminate a pregnancy. Contraceptives are no different than taking Nyquil for a cold or anti-biotic for an infection because it’s ultimately the person’s rights to use the healthcare in the manner they feel necessary. With that being said, conscientious objection comes into play with respect to the employee rather than Hobby Lobby stated by Substantive Principle Two: “an employee can refuse to perform any task that is extraneous to that job as defined to their moral beliefs and rights”(Whitbeck, 75). With the provided health insurance, it is the employees’ decision based on his or her beliefs and rights to choose how they use the health insurance rather than the employer forcing certain limitations to their health care as the article stated. If the contract between the employee and employer does not state the moral obligation and beliefs of the employer than it’s within reason that the employee has the choice of their own moral beliefs. I argue against the Supreme Court ruling because it is ultimately the choice and obligation of the employee based on his or her moral beliefs and rights rather than the employers beliefs and

The ACA was enacted to increase the affordability as well as the quality of health insurance for United States citizens nationwide. Specifically, some of its services include providing preventive services including contraception, abortion, STD screenings and related education and counseling.Since contraceptive regulations have been implemented in our society following the Affordable Care Act, over 100 nonprofit (mainly) religious organizations have challenged the contraceptive coverage requirement. These non profits claim that even the accommodation (for provision of contraceptives to employees) is morally wrong and burdens their religious

In September 2012, Hobby Lobby filed suit against the U.S. government to exempt itself from the contraceptive mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Hobby Lobby’s owners are evangelical Christians who believe that the contraceptive mandate violates their religious beliefs; specifically, that life begins at conception when successful fertilization occurs within a prospective mother. Providing contraceptive measures, in Hobby Lobby’s view, would facilitate the abortion of a pregnancy, which most evangelicals equate to murder. On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Hobby Lobby, along with all other closely held for-profit

In Plain English” covers this topic very well. In this blog, Amy Howe explains that Hobby Lobby was not fighting to prevent coverage of all contraceptives, just ones that possibly contribute to abortions. These were a small amount of the total contraceptives that are covered under their health care plans. It further goes to explain how this ruling forced the Obama Administration to have certain portions of this law rewritten so as to comply with this ruling. The Obama Administration did, however, have some victory in defining that publicly held companies would still have to comply with the law, as originally written. The exceptions only applied to closely held, or private for profit companies (Court rules in favor of for-profit corporations, but how broadly? In Plain English

The first argument for supporting Planned Parenthood is that it provides women with other health services and not just birth control or abortion. Without these services, women’s health will decline because many people can afford treatment. “Every year, Planned Parenthood’s doctors and nurses provide more than 3 million women with preventive health care, including nearly one million lifesaving screenings for cervical cancer, 830,000 breast exams, contraception to nearly 2.5 million patients and nearly four million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Literally, they are a trusted health care provider to millions of women (Whitman).” The statistic proves that Planned Parenthood does more than prevent unwanted pregnancy but also take on tasks care for women’s health.

In response to the disapproval of Planned Parenthood in government, protesters flooded the streets advocating for reproductive and sexual health care for everyone. Since Planned Parenthood is a separate entity from regular healthcare and it covers specific needs,

Of the number of women who obtain contraception care at clinics, more than one-third of them use Planned Parenthood (Marcus). With the removal of these services, there would be a drastic increase in the number of unplanned pregnancies. Each year, Planned Parenthood prevents an estimated 516,000 unexpected pregnancies (Strickland). Not only would the number of unplanned pregnancies increase, but the awareness of sexual education would decrease, as Planned Parenthood provides sex education to 1.5 million people each year (Strickland). While it is easy to assume that women would be able to get access elsewhere, it is simply not feasible. The magnitude at which Planned Parenthood extends its services would not easily be matched. The inability to provide contraception to the women who would go unprovided would create a detrimental problem in the government that is trying to defund the

Though the AFA was intended to provide cost-effective medical coverage, the constitutionality of the legislation is now being called into question. In 2014, the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (and other lawsuits) argued that employers should not be required to provide coverage of contraception if it violates the morals and beliefs of the employers or organization. The courts agreed and ruled that forcing employers to provide this type of coverage was in direct violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as the First Amendment’s right to religious freedom. As a result, a third party provides coverage for contraception at no cost to individuals who work for employers

An extraordinary amount of media’s attention has been devoted towards Hobby Lobby’s slight victory through a decision by the Supreme Court in their most recent Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014). The attention was focused on the court’s decision that essentially negated corporations claiming religious objections to certain contraceptives from participating in the mandate. Depending upon the participation and religious

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed in 2010 under the Obama Administration to make health coverage available to more Americans. According to Thomas Berg, a social researcher and law professor at St. Thomas University, It would have brought greater demand for health services. The increased number of health professions needed to provide those services would have motivated a younger generation to pursue a career in the medical field. The act would have raised the standard of living in America. Unfortunately a clause was added to the ACA in August of 2011 that would mandate the coverage of “Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity” be included all insurance policies (Berg). The mandate would not have been enacted until August of 2012, but religious groups came out in opposition immediately when news of the clause was released. The Catholic Church was one of the prominent advocates against the enactment of the mandate as contraceptive and sterilization methods are against their moral teachings. The government was forcing the coverage despite the objections of those wishing to practice their conservative faiths freely. The mandate stands as an intrusion of religious liberties and an attack on personal values.

In fact, under the Affordable Care Act only non-profits are exempted from covering contraceptives in their health insurance plans (Bassett). While this saves churches and other non-profits that are against birth control, what does it do for the business owners who are personally against birth control coverage? An example would be David Green, who is the founder of Hobby Lobby, a craft store that supports Christian beliefs. According to Green “This legal challenge has always remained about one thing and one thing only: the right of our family businesses to live out our sincere and deeply held religious convictions as guaranteed by the law and the Constitution…Business owners shouldn’t have to choose between violating their faith and violating the law” (Howell). Green has voiced his objections to government mandated birth control through the court